MBA's are BS

Sammy Jankis

Was it me?
http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/106766/Is-It-Time-to-Retrain-B-Schools?

And in the 1970s, he said, the idea took hold that a company's stock price was the primary barometer of success, which changed the schools' concept of proper management techniques.

Instead of being viewed as long-term economic stewards, he said, managers came to be seen as mainly as the agents of the owners -- the shareholders -- and responsible for maximizing shareholder wealth.

"A kind of market fundamentalism took hold in business education," Professor Khurana said. "The new logic of shareholder primacy absolved management of any responsibility for anything other than financial results."
 
do me a favor asstool. Google average MBA salaries and tell me how much more it is than yours. Then tell me financially how your better of with 3 degrees instead of getting your second as an MBA. Assuming you could have gotten in graduate school in the first place.
 
do me a favor asstool. Google average MBA salaries and tell me how much more it is than yours. Then tell me financially how your better of with 3 degrees instead of getting your second as an MBA. Assuming you could have gotten in graduate school in the first place.

This isn't about money. This is about being shortsighted and destructive in pursuit of money.
 
do me a favor asstool. Google average MBA salaries and tell me how much more it is than yours. Then tell me financially how your better of with 3 degrees instead of getting your second as an MBA. Assuming you could have gotten in graduate school in the first place.

Ehhhh, I'm making on par with an MBA and I don't have one....though I do have a Masters of Science.
 
http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/106766/Is-It-Time-to-Retrain-B-Schools?

And in the 1970s, he said, the idea took hold that a company's stock price was the primary barometer of success, which changed the schools' concept of proper management techniques.

Instead of being viewed as long-term economic stewards, he said, managers came to be seen as mainly as the agents of the owners -- the shareholders -- and responsible for maximizing shareholder wealth.

"A kind of market fundamentalism took hold in business education," Professor Khurana said. "The new logic of shareholder primacy absolved management of any responsibility for anything other than financial results."

managers of any company ARE agents of the shareholders... who the hell do you think they work for?
 
Let's see asstool has 3 compt tech degrees, not sure if BAC database entry job is a result of a degree.

questioning whether mba's are any good because some crimianals sold shit wrapped in a bow is about what I would expect out of some very weakly educated people.
Yes Mottly you have a graduate degree. All I'm saying most of the time is this.
Ba>HS Master>BA generally.
nice troll to find some tool who's anti MBA while the republicans let a bunch of degenerate gamblers run our financial institutions.
 
Let's see asstool has 3 compt tech degrees, not sure if BAC database entry job is a result of a degree.

questioning whether mba's are any good because some crimianals sold shit wrapped in a bow is about what I would expect out of some very weakly educated people.
Yes Mottly you have a graduate degree. All I'm saying most of the time is this.
Ba>HS Master>BA generally.
nice troll to find some tool who's anti MBA while the republicans let a bunch of degenerate gamblers run our financial institutions.


MBA educators encourage a destructive and short term view. that's the criticism of mba's, and it's legitimate, monkey chunker.
 
MBA educators encourage a destructive and short term view. that's the criticism of mba's, and it's legitimate, monkey chunker.

Like you have a fucking clue, you've don't have a business degree much less and advanced one. You took econ 101 so you think you have a clue??? LOFL
 
MBA educators encourage a destructive and short term view. that's the criticism of mba's, and it's legitimate, monkey chunker.

i don't think that maximizing shareholder wealth equals a destructive short term view of anything. actually i think it says the opposite. the job of managers is to increase shareholders wealth, if they're being destructive to the company they wouldn't be increasing shareholders wealth, now would they?

not to say that there aren't destructive managers out there. it's the shareholders job to fire these managers.
 
i don't think that maximizing shareholder wealth equals a destructive short term view of anything. actually i think it says the opposite. the job of managers is to increase shareholders wealth, if they're being destructive to the company they wouldn't be increasing shareholders wealth, now would they?

not to say that there aren't destructive managers out there. it's the shareholders job to fire these managers.

It does because of the the way everything occurs on a quarterly basis.

For instance, manipulating labor markets to displace american workers in favor of cheaper alternatives creates a short term profit, but destroys the consumption ability of the middle class. It creates an imbalance in the system.
 
It does because of the the way everything occurs on a quarterly basis.

For instance, manipulating labor markets to displace american workers in favor of cheaper alternatives creates a short term profit, but destroys the consumption ability of the middle class. It creates an imbalance in the system.

I actually agree with you on that asstool, 1. maybe it's not mba's outsouring you every two years.
2. anytime you pain with a broad brush you wind up making yourself look like an idiot. You have too many wide brushes grasshopper.
 
It does because of the the way everything occurs on a quarterly basis.

For instance, manipulating labor markets to displace american workers in favor of cheaper alternatives creates a short term profit, but destroys the consumption ability of the middle class. It creates an imbalance in the system.

It's not the job of private companies to ensure the consumption ability of the middle class, it's to increase shareholders wealth. Why would anybody want to own a business.
 
It's not the job of private companies to ensure the consumption ability of the middle class, it's to increase shareholders wealth. Why would anybody want to own a business.

Why do you call outsourcing "manipulating the labor markets". Why don't you just call it outsourcing?
 
Back
Top